credits, does this mean the next target is what kind of home you buy if you are going to get use of a taxpayer deduction? does it mean that -- ms. slaughter: another minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: i thank the gentlelady. does it mean that if you're doing research on biotechnology that the tax credit is going to be restricted and dictated by a majority who -- whoever it happens to be of this house of representatives? . the basic question for this congress is whether we are going to allow the status quo to exist through the hyde amendment where people can exercise their conscience on this important question, or are we going to have a dictation from this congress that absolutely and completely prohibits people from making that own choice them selves?

the mutual respect that mr. hyde understood, we needed in this country is really going to be frayed with this legislation. so i would urge members to vote against this legislation. that's out of respect for the fact that there are sharply different views on this extraordinarily important question. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. >> i yield two minutes and 15 seconds to my colleague from virginia, i'm sorry, from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for 2 two minutes and 15 seconds. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from florida for yielding me time to speak on the importance of protecting defenseless unborn children and ensuring taxpayer money is not used to pay for elective abortions. i do want to explain to my glib friend from vermont, who is so

good on the floor, that the hyde amendment itself covers plans as well as direct funding. so i think the people need to know there's a slight correction to the comments that he made. according to a cnn poll last month, madam speaker, more than 60% of americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. today, this house has the historic opportunity to end the patchwork of policies that are intended to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion and by passing a government-wide prohibition on funding elective abortions. h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act, codify miss long-standing pro-life protections that have been passed under republican and democrat controlled congress. in fact, minority leader nancy pelosi has voted 14 times to prohibit taxpayer funding for abortion in the district of columbia. president obama voted against

taxpayer funding for abortion in the district of columbia twice. when he was in the senate. and since being elected president, he signed appropriations legislation into law that prohibits this funding. as you can see, madam speaker, opposition to taxpayer funding for abortion is bipartisan, bicameral and supported by the american people. there's nothing more important than protecting voiceless, unborn children and their families from the travesty of abortion. therefore, i urge my colleagues to vote for life by voting in favor of this rule and the underlying bill and say that my colleague from vermont said we can differ on opinions, but this is the right position to take. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: i thank the gentlewoman from new york.

i rise in opposition to the rule and in opposition to h.r. 3, a bill that threatens women's health and access to care. over the past two weeks, as i traveled in my district, the top of the issues were the economy and jobs. now that we're back in d.c., instead of working on bills to move our economy forward, we're asked to debate divisive social policy. clearly the priorities of the republican party do not match those of the people of hawaii. there are those who will say h.r. 3 maintains the status quo. not so. it takes us back to the days when a woman had to prove she was a victim of rape and violate women's medical privacy rights. do you think small business owners have the time to determine whether their insurance covers abortions? do you want to take us back to

the days when a woman had to prove she resisted her rapist? i was a member of a state legislature in the 19809s in hawaii when i worked with women as victim advocacy groups to change our sexual assault laws so the prosecution focused on the perpetrator of the rape, rather than on the actions of the victim. our court system in those days, because of our law, victimized the victims of rape. hawaii changed its laws. this bill takes us back to those days when a woman had to show that she resisted. hawaii was also the first state in the nation to decriminalize abortion and give a woman the right to choose. the person who carried this bill in the legislature was a devout catholic. the governor, jack burns a devout catholic, he went to mass every single day, he allowed this bill to become law

in hawaii in spite of the fact that he had a lot of pressure as a catholic to veto this bill he could have done so. he respected the right of a woman to choose. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this rule and this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield one minute to my colleague, mr. huizenga. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. huizenga: you're seeing the old arguments of washington versus the new realities of america. we have two distinct issues here. those two issues are one, life, two, the taxpayer. i think those things are become very -- are becoming very stark. here we are, a situation where a president has signed an executive order to do many of the exact same things, to not allow federal funded abortions to be happening. jet somehow, it's we shouldn't be putting this into law. it seems common sense we'd do

that. we need to do this to protect the taxpayer. you look at polling, you look at the number of things that are going on, we cannot allow federal funds to be used and our taxpayers to be used for this procedure. now let's move on to life. we know the sanctity of life that is there from that very conception until natural death. we need to protect that. we need to protect that atmosphere as a government. it is not our job to promote that. it is our job to promote -- it's not our job to promote that horrendous operation, it's our job to promote those children. thank you for the opportunity. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to recognize the gentlelady from california, ms. speier, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier feather i rise in strong opposition to this -- ms. speier: i rise in strong opposition to this bill. millions of americans are

looking for work and we're busy turning the tax law into a moral club. forget that the republicans want limited government when it comes to protecting you in the workplace but big goth when it comes to regulating your bedroom. this isn't about anyone's position on abortion. roe vs. wade was decided 38 years ago, it's the law of the land. this is about whether we should use the tax law as a moral club to impose the religious beliefs of a few members of congress on the entire nation. what's next? some find it immoral to drink alcohol or gamble. should we outlaw business deductions for meals that include wine? how about business conventions in las vegas? many people are morally opposed to profanity. maybe we should make it against the law to swear when filling out your taxes. how about a more serious issue. many of my constituents think the war in iraq is immoral. same for tax breaks for big oil

or tack breaks that reward corporations if shipping jobs overseas. singling out abortion is wrong and it's a distraction from the serious challenges our nation faces. if republicans want to overturn roe v. wade, they should draft a bill and give it their best shot. but don't use the tax code as a bludgeon, you don't have the votes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield one minute to my colleague from new jersey -- highway. i'm sorry. -- highway. -- ohio, i'm sorry. mr. shadegg. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. shadegg: i rise in strong support of h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. a majority of americans made it clear that they oppose the government using their tax dollars to pay for abortions. it's time we permanently extend the hyde amendment which bans this irresponsible practice.

particularly in our current budget situation, the federal government should not be subsidizing aabortions. additionally this bill permanently extends important legal protections for doctors an other health care providers who refuse to perform abortions to which they are morally opposed. every doctor and health care provider deserves the right to act according to his or her own conscience. this important legislation will ensure that -- mr. chabot: and this will ensure that that happens. the american taxpayers don't want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions. let's do the fiscally and morally responsible thing to vote to pass h.r. 3. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two

minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrew druse: if proposals were brought to the house floor tissue mr. andrews: if proposals were brought to the house there are that said the following, if an american makes a charitable contribution and takes a deduction on his income tax return, we'll disallow that if the group receiving the donation supports gun ownership, gun rights or gun education, i suspect it would not get one vote on the republican side of the aisle an shouldn't get any votes on the democratic side of the aisle because it's wrong an probably unconstitutional. that is exactly what the underlying bill does here. it says that an american exercising his or her constitutional right, in this case her constitutional right, with their own money, will suffer a negative tax consequence because the majority wants them to.

understand this. if an american woman with her own money chooses to exercise her constitutional right, she will be suffering an increase in taxes as a result of making this decision. i scarcely say that anyone on the majority side would agree that if we picked one of their favorite social issues and said we're going to raise taxes on people who engage in that social issue, much less in a constitutional right, that they would agree with this. this is not a debate about abortion. this is a debate about privacy. it's a a debate about individual liberty and the right of people to do what they choose with their own money, particularly when they're enforcing one of their own constitutional rights. i would also say for the record, it's my understanding that if this bill is carried out, a person who is a minor who is a victim of statutory rape may not be able to avail

herself of her constitutional rights with her family's own money. let's have -- i would ask for 30 more seconds. ms. slaughter: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. andrews: i know that people feel passionately about the right to life an the right to choose and this is the form in which that debate ought to take place but using the internal revenue code to either punish or reward certain social conduct, particularly conduct that is in the exercise of a constitutional right, is wrong. and if anyone in the minority side would like to tell me they would vote for that n.r.a. provision, i welcome that. i wouldn't. because it's an unconstitutional burden on the constitutional rights of americans. so is this. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield three minutes to my colleague, dr. roe from tennessee.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman, i thank the speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding abortion act. i'm a proud co-sponsor of this legislation and as an on city trigs and gynecologist, i've delivered nearly 5,000 babies and i strongly support the sanctity of life. i believe life is a precious gift from god, it begins at conception. i've seen human development occur from the earliest sames of a small fetus all the way through birth, that the magic of the heart beat at 26 to 28 days post-conception is indescribable. this strengthens my quicks of the right to life. since 1976 until the passage of president obama's health care reform law, congress prevented taxpayer funding for abortion. unless it's excluded from plans

is torically mandated. that's why the language in h.r. 3 is so important and necessary. it explicitly states that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortion. abortion is not a business our government should be involved in. because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it. regardless of how people felt about the president's health care law, people shared the belief that the president's executive order on this subject was simply insufficient. i agree with this concern and believe that further efforts need to be made to ensure that no taxpayer funds are ever used for this purpose. under h.r. 3, federal funds are statutorily prohibited from being involved in any type of health care coverage or benefits that include abortion. this means future presidents or even our president can't go back and insert abortion coverage on a whim. as legislators, we carry the responsible and -- responsibility and privilege to protect those who do not have a voice. we must make our laws consistent with our science and

restore full legal protections all waiting to be born. this starts with legislation like h r. 3, one of government's core functions is to protect the most innocent among us and i will do my best to be sure that government fulfills its duty. i will always fight for the right to life because it is my belief that we are unique creations of god who knows us, loves us, even before we are conceived. i thank the gentlelady and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from the district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her strong work on this bill. madam speaker, this bill is unprecedented in a number of ways. it's unprecedented in that it uniquely affect my district and

i was not allowed to testify at the hearing of the judiciary committee where it was considered. it is unprecedented in its attack on a woman's right to choose, going well beyond the hyde amendment, and it is unprecedented in seeking to federalize local funds from the district of columbia. section 309 of this bill would make permanent the attachment in the recent 2011 spending bill that keeps the district from spending its own local funds on abortions for poor women. that's bad enough. but the party that came to power even to deinvolve federal power back to the state -- devolve federal power back to the state is reversed in this bill in taking what has always

been understood in our constitution to be local power, and worse, local money in de-- and deciding how it should be spent. it is a dictatorship of local funds. it goes against every principle that the majority claims when it cites the constitution. it goes against the accepted practice, a practice you can do nothing about in the states, where 17 states have, of course, spent their own local funds on abortions for poor women for decades, recognizing this could not be done with federal money. the district of columbia does not ask for one cent of federal money, and the same way the district of columbia demands that its local funds be kept local for us as for every member of this body.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my colleague from new jersey, mr. garrett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: and i thank the gentlelady. before i begin my remarks, i am shocked by the statement to my -- of my friend and college from the state of new jersey, as well, when he makes the bold statement, taking away a subsidy, of sorts, and that rather translates to a tax increase on an individual. nothing, of course, is done in this legislation in that effect. i rise in full support of h.r. 3, the knocks taxpayer funding for -- the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. i want to commend everyone who worked on this, especially to congressman smith, for being a leader on this important issue. you see, by passing this bill, what we really do, what we really do is establish a governmentwide prohibition on

subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage while giving the doctors opposed to abortion certain protections to safeguard them from performing abortions against their will. this is a commonsense bill. it's consistent with the opinions of the majority of the americans who have voiced opposition to federal funding for abortion. see, i believe that the time has come to do away with the patchwork ban currently in place with the laws that extend the hyde amendment to all aspects of spending authority in congress. i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that cutting off abortion to services will cause abortion numbers to rise, they say. in fact, a research by the pro-abortion institute said that we will see a 25% decrease in abortions. furthermore, contrary to what the opposition would have you believe, this legislation will not affect funding for family planning services. it will prevent funding for

abortion and abortion coverages. so it's important to point out that taxpayers across the country do not believe that they should be funding abortion coverage. what, just last week in indiana governor daniels signed probably the most comprehensive taxpayer protection law -- another 20 seconds. mr. nugent: i give 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. garrett: the governor signed the most comprehensive taxpayer protection law for prevention of subsidizing abortions. they said it will probably go in other states. why is that? because it's the will of the people. let me tell you, i am the father of two beautiful girls. as i look at them i see the promise of tomorrow. my life is without question better for the love i share with them. america's better for each child and life that is here, so i will come to this floor, continue to fight to protect

the most fundamental right of the unborn and each of us the right to life. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i am pleased to yield 1 3/4 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: 1 3/4 minutes, the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentlelady for her leadership on this and so many important issues. i want to make clear in response to the gentleman's statement, there is no taxpayer funded abortions now. there weren't any yesterday and there won't be any in the future. h.r. 3 goes far beyond current law. it is stunning in its scope, appalling in its indifference and outrageous in its arrogance. the right to choose is absolutely meaningless without access to choice. and h.r. 3 creates obstacles for women to access safe, legal and constitutionally protected health care. this makes access to abortion

coverage incredibly difficult. and i would say that the bill is not only an attack on women's rights, it's also an attack on the rights of the private insurance companies and small businesses. it tells private insurance companies how to run their businesses, raises compliance costs for small businesses and even tells the local government how they may spend their money. the bill manages to offend nearly high-sounding principle the other side says they stand for. so if you truly believe in the freedom of the individual and the wisdom of the free market, vote no on this absolutely appalling piece of work. it is anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-respect and anti-business. it is a totally flawed bill, goes far further than any existing law and it is the deepest and strongest attack on a woman's right to choose that

has come before this body in my lifetime. and the republican majority says its priority is jobs and job crags but their actions speak louder than words. they want to come into the bedroom, they want to come between a woman and her doctor. it is an appalling bill. please vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: madam speaker, i yield one minute to mr. fincher, my colleague from georgia -- my bad -- tennessee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. fincher: i rise in support of this rule. congressman hyde wrote, "it is becoming culturally fashionable to protect the defenseless unborn." these words holds true today showing that majority of americans oppose the vast majority of americans and americans consider themselves pro-life more than ever.

polls also show a large majority of americans conot accept taxpayer funds for abortion. a cnn poll found that 61% of respondents oppose using public funds for abortions. a november, 2009, "washington post" poll showed 61% of respondents oppose government subsidies for health insurance that includes abortion. a september, 2009, international communications research poll showed that 67% of respondents oppose a measure that would require people to pay for abortion coverage with their federal taxes. our constituents and our conscious demand us that we wait no longer, we must permanently end taxpayer funding of abortion and protect the lives of unborn children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, may i inquire of my colleague if he has any further speakers? mr. nugent: i do have

additional speakers. ms. slaughter: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i yield two minutes to mr. king, my colleague from iowa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. king: i thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i appreciate the privilege to come here to the floor and stand up for the rights of the innocent unborn in this country. this -- as a root of this question, the root of this question is the question of what is human life and is it sacred in awful its form and in what instance does it begin? we all recognize that human life needs to be sacred in all of its forms and it begins at the instant of conception and once we come to that conclusion we stand up to defend every voiceless, innocent miracle that's on its way to breathing free air in this country. and to think that we are compelling the american taxpayer to fund abortions across this country and in foreign lands on occasion, because we can't quite hear

that voice, henry hyde heard that voice and we're standing up with and for henry hyde. i so much appreciate him and chris smith who the principal author of this legislation. i advise in support of this rule, madam speaker, and i rise in support of the innocent unborn, the conscious of america must be heard in this debate today on this rule and on the underlying bill. the voice of the voiceless need to be heard. people not heard in this life we will hear in the next, as henry hyde so eloquently said, but a america that is a pro-life america with over 60% that oppose federal funding -- taxpayer funded abortions, this is a consistent position that reflects the will of the american people. we must draw this line, not just with planned parenthood but every abortion provider in the country, if they can't make it in the market on their own, we have no business subsidizing them without regard on the impact of our overall economy. madam speaker, i am pleased and proud to be here today to take

this stand, and i'm pleased and proud of the entire pro-life caucus that's here in the united states congress, both democrats and republicans alike, who have done so much over the years to bring us to this point of consensus. and this is a consensus that will be revealed on the vote on the rule and the underlying bill, a consensus with the resounding support of this rule and the underlying bill. thank you, madam speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'll continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i have no further speakers. if the gentlelady would like to close. ms. slaughter: yes. i am prepared to close. first would like to remind people what we said about statutory rape. when this bill was first introduced it modified the long-standing exemption to the hyde amendment by adding the term "forcible" before the word

"rape." in other words, the victim of rape had to show rules and other manners that she really was forcibly raped before it was covered. they changed that because there was such an outcry but they found another way to get to this to exclude victims of rape. saying those words scandalizes me. the house jewish report, which will be used by the courts to -- the house judiciary report, which will be used by the courts to interpret this bill, it will not allow the federal government to subsidize abortions in cases of statutory rape, claiming this reflects existing law, and, of course, it does not. statutory rape is one of the most serious of crimes because the young woman involved is not given consent and indeed is not allowed to because of her age. how dare we do that? have they not suffered enough? the hyde amendment does not distinguish between statutory rape or any other kind of rape. in fact, a 1978 regulation

implements the the regulation in funding the exemption. now, if most people in the united states does not want their taxpayer to use their money to fund abortion, they can relax. we have not used that for 38 years. we will not change that -- it's not the intent of this bill at all. it's simply the title, which is meaningless. but what it does do, it increases taxes on the middle class and lower-income women and their families, but it singles out small business employers and penalizes them if they provide comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion. 2/3 of all voters polled oppose this draconian change to the tax system for small businesses and individuals with plans that cover abortion. even most republicans, tea party supporters, anti-abortion workers, and evangelical

christians oppose the tax increase. the head of the south carolina small business wrote, this is a slap in the face of millions of small business who offer insurance to their employees an are eligible for the new tax credit. i ask unanimous consent to insert the full text of this column from the south carolina small business chamber of commerce describing this bill as a slap in the face. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. nugent: i need to correct one thing. the word forcible is nowhere in the statute or the legislation as we have on the floor. madam speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you believe that h.r. 3 is about taking away the women's right to choose.

that is simply not true. h.r. 3 is about ensuring that taxpayers aren't on the hook for paying for that choice. my democratic colleagues would have you believe we want to raise your taxes and allow the i.r.s. to audit women. again, that is simply not true. the bill is about one thing. keeping our tax dollars from being spent for elective abortions on demand. the united states is current libor roing 42 cents of every dollar we spend. we are in tet and spending money we don't have. we need to be focused on bringing government back to our core mission. you can't tell me that paying for elective abortions is part of our core mission. with that, i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time.

without objection, the previous question is ordered. the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the question is on -- the question is on adoption. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered.

the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: will members please clear the aisles and take your conversations off the floor? the speaker pro tempore: members, cease your conversations or take them off

the floor, please. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 237, i call up h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 28, h.r. 3, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include other material in h.r. 3. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 237 and in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on the judiciary

printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in house report 112-71 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of the judiciary. 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, will each will control 20 minutes. the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. smith. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. first, let me recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr.

smith, the chief sponsor of h.r. 3, for his persistent leadership over the years on this issue. many members and the american people have strong feelings about the subject of abortion, but one thing is clear, federal funding of abortion will lead to more abortions. for example, in 2009, there the congressional budget office has estimated that the federal government would pay as many as 675,000 abortions each year without the hyde amount and other provision that is prevent federal funding of abortion. the american people do not want federally funded abortions. a zock bye poll found that 77% of americans feel that federal funds should never pay for abortions or should pay only to save the life of the mother. that is the policy of the hyde amendment which h.r. 3 would enact into law.

h.r. 3 does not ban abortion. it also does not restrict abortions or abortion coverage in health care plans as long as those abortions or plans use only private or state funds. this legislation places no additional legal restrictions on abortions. it simply protects taxpayers from having to fund or subsidize something they morally oppose. h.r. 3 also is necessary to fix the recent health care law. absolutely nothing in that law prevents the federal funding of abortions under the programs it creates. neither congress nor the administration should take the view that they know better than the american people what is good for them. congress should pass h.r. 3 to codify the long-standing ban on the federal funding of abortions. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance

of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: members of the house, the problem with this bill is that it reaches far beyond federal funding and that it subjects women to profound government intrusion, that it restricts women's access to health care, and that it targets small businesses for disparate treatment under the tax code. and that's why i have more than a dozen organizations ranging

from the american nurses association to the ywca, all opposed to this legislation. in addition, this bill will punish women for their private health care decisions and will subject them to profound government intrusion. so this is not a democratic versus republican issue. it's a very important personal decision. now, the goal of this bill, and i'd like to suggest it from the outset of this discussion, is to make it impossible to obtain abortion services even when paid for with purely private, nonfederal funds. and if there's anyone that has

a different view about this, i hope it gets expressed this afternoon. and finally, h.r. 3 subjects small businesses to disparate treatment under the tax laws. and as one who supports small business and workers in this country, that alone would turn my support against this measure. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner, former chairman of the judiciary committee, and the current chairman of the crime subcommittee of the judiciary. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. sensenbrenner: thank you. madam speaker, today we are presented with an opportunity to take a giant step toward protecting the unborn. for almost 35 years restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion have

been enacted separately and have been contained in annually renewed congressional temporary funding restrictions, regulations, and executive orders. such policies have sought to ensure that american taxpayer does not fund the destruction of innocent human life through abortion. the legislation on the floor today will end the need for numerous separate abortion funding policies. finally put into place a permanent ban on any u.s. government financial support for abortion. each year the abortion industry has allocated millions of tax dollars to advance its agenda. last year alone the planned parenthood federation of america collected more than 360 million taxpayer funded dollars. because all money is functionible when taxpayers pay an organization like planned parenthood, millions of dollars, we cannot help but empower and promote all of that organization's activities.

tax-paying americans are fed up. they are tired of their hard earned money being spent on supporting and promoting the abortion industry. under h.r. 3, federal funds will be prohibited for elective abortion coverage through any program in the u.s. department of health and human services. the legislation prevents funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas, prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees, and prevents taxpayer funding abortions in washington, d.c. importantly h.r. 3 would also protect the conscious driven health care providers from being forced by the government to participate in abortions. the conscience clause is critically needed in order to protect health care providers who do not want to take part in the abortion business. without it, people could be forced to participate in something they strongly believe to be morally wrong. these hospitals could lose funding and be forced to close. it's time to end taxpayer

funded abortions. i strongly support this important and needed approach to preserve and promote the sanctity of life. my time has expired. the speaker pro tempore: who wishes to be recognized? the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i would like now to yield to the former chairman of the subcommittee on the constitution, gerry nadler of new york, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, this bill has nothing to do with creating jobs, reducing our deficitters or bolstering our economy. it addresses the fictitious claim that legislation is needed to prevent federal funding of abortion services. this bill has been falsely advertised as a mere codification of existing law prohibiting federal funding abortion. i have always opposed the unfair restrictions on federal funding for perfectly legal health care procedure, but this

bill goes far beyond prohibiting federal funding. the real purpose and effect of this bill is to eliminate private health care choices for women by imposing significant tax penaltieses on families and small business when is they use their own money to pay for health insurance or medical care. this tax penalty is intended to drive insurance companies into dropping abortion services from existing private health care policies that women and families now have and rely upon. the republicans claim a tax credit, this bill claims a tax credit or deduction is a form of government funding. it follows the tax deductible charitable contributions to a church, synagogue, our other institutions are also government funding. a position my republican colleagues have never taken and that if taken would prohibit tax dedungses for -- deductions for charitable contributions to religious organizations because they would be violations of the establishment clause of the first amendment. you can't have it both ways. either tax exemptions or deductions or credits for private spending or governmentp

funder or they are not. if they are not, this bill makes no sense. if they are, then tax deductible private contributions to religious institutions prohibited by the constitution. the power to tax is the power to destroy. and here the taxing power is being used to destroy the right of every american to make private health care decisions free from government interference. this bill is an unprecedented attack on the use of private funds to make private health care choices and is part of the new house majority's broader and disturbing attack on women's access to health care. after two years of hearing my republican colleagues complain that government should not meddle in the private insurance market or private health care choices, i am astounded by this legislation which is so obviously designed to do just that. it seems many republicans believe in freedom provided no one uses that freedom people find objectionable. there's also a provision in the bill that might allow a health care provider or institution to refuse to provide an abortion to a woman whose life depends

on that abortion. they could let her die in the emergency room and the government would be powerless to do anything. if the government insisted the hospital not let the woman die, the bill would allow the hospital to sue the government and in the case of a state or locality strip the community of that funding. despite the fact that republicans made a big show of taking out language relating -- limiting rape to forcible rape, the committee report now says that the bill still excludes victims of statutory rape in order to close the, quote, loophole. that's right, young women who have been sexualize victimized is a loophole. disgusting. a vote for this bill is a vote for tax increase on women, families, and small businesses. it's a vote for taking away the existing health insurance women and families now have and pay for with their own funds. to refuse care over the obligation to provide lifesaving care. it deserves to be defeated. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona,

mr. franks, who is the chairman of the constitutional subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. franks: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, it is said that a government is what it spends. this bill is really about whether the role of america's government is to fund a practice that takes the lives of over one million unborn american babies every year. despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of americans, even some of those who consider themselves pro-choice, strongly object to their taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions. in 1973, madam speaker, the united states supreme court said the unborn child was not a person under the constitution. and we have since witnessed the tragic deaths of over 50 million innocent little baby boys and girls who died without the protection we in this chamber should have give them. some of this was carried out with taxpayer dollars before the hyde amendment and other such laws were in place. and taxpayer funding of abortion could recommence in

the future under obamacare. so before we vote on this bill it is important for members to ask themselves the real question. does abortion take the life of a child? if it does not, then this is simply a budgetary issue. but if abortion really does kill a little baby, then those of us sitting here in these chambers of freedom are presiding over the greatest human genocide in the history of humanity. some of it may be financed in the future, madam speaker, with taxpayer dollars over which we will have had direct control. madam speaker, our founding fathers believed there were certain self-evident truths worth holding on to. the greatest of those in their mind was the transcendent meaning of this gift of god called human life. our constitution says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. the care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is the chief and

only object of good government. madam speaker, protecting the lives and constitutional rights of our fellow americans is why we are all here. and forcing taxpayers to pay for the indiscriminate killing of helpless little baby americans is not good government and it should be ended once and for all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york. michigan, i'm sorry. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize the distinguished member of the judiciary committee, dr. judy chu, of california, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. chu: imagine what life would be like for women under h.r. 3. imagine you are pregnant and then diagnosed with breast cancer. your doctor says that chemotherapy could save your life but will permanently harm the baby. the diagnosis is devastating. but to add to your grief because of h.r. 3 an abortion will not be covered by your

private health insurance. you must pay out of pocket even though it is necessary to save your life. imagine i.r.s. agents as abortion cops. under h.r. 3 you couldn't deduct an abortion as a medical expense unless it were the result of rape or incest, even though you are using your own money and even though you can deduct every other medical procedure. imagine the i.r.s. knocking at your door demanding receipts and grilling you about your rape. this bill forces women to live their lives as if america was big brother washington bureaucrats dictate the personal private health indecision of american families. stop these attacks on women, oppose h.r. 3. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, who is the chairman of the intellectual property subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. goodlatte: i thank the

chairman for yielding. madam speaker, as the co-sponsor i rise today in support of h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act. itch long believed that the right to life is one we must vigorously protect and i have co-sponsored many bills to do that, including the right to life act last congress. while there are many divergent views on this topic, one thing they most agree on is that it is wholly improper for the federal government to use taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to fund abortions. this is a moral issue of the highens importance to many taxpayers and to force them to fund these activities is completely unacceptable. for many americans, taxpayer funded abortions would constitute an extreme violation of conscience that should not be sanctioned by this congress. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3 and i want to thank the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, and the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, for first introducing and then advancing this legislation. . i yield back. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i

am proud to yield to lynn woolsey of california, a strong progressive in this congress, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for one minute. ms. woolsey: thank you, madam speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, for the last 18 years as a member of this body i've listened to republicans go on and on about keeping government out of the health care system. that and taking away the voice of women actually puts the government between that woman and her most private health care decisions and is the biggest, the most intrusive government of all. i thought my republican friends hated taxes, but apparently they hate reproductive freedom and women's rights even more, because this bill would raise taxes on small businesses that provide their employees with health plans that include

abortion coverage. and in one of its most egregious provisions, this bill could lead to i.r.s. audits of women who seek abortion care after they had been -- a sexual assault. absolutely unconscionable. vote no on h.r. 3. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, who is a member of the judiciary committee and also chairman of the republican study committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. jordan: i thank the gentlelady and thank the chairman of the judiciary committee. look, life is precious, life is sacred, and government should protect that basic fact. we don't get our -- this -- it's not some grant from government. it's a gift from god. our founders understood that when they talked about the creator giving us this inalienable right. and the fact we live in the

greatest nation in history and the tax dollars are used to destroy the life of unborn -- the lives of the unborn children is wrong. this bill is consistent with the great nation founded on the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. i urge a yes vote on the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. braley, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for wo minutes. mr. braley: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank the speaker for recognizing me. if you remember only one thing about this bill, remember this -- it's a solution in search of a problem. the simple truth is that there are no taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions. none.

zero. nada. don't be fooled by this bill. it isn't about funding. it's about preventing women from being able to access comprehensive health care. that's what this bill is about. the debate is about whether politicians sitting in congress should dictate the personal, private medical decisions of the american people. it aims to impose intrusive government rules on personal medical decisions. the bill supporters don't want abortion, any abortion to be legal in the united states, and so they are adding as many bureaucratic rules as they can come up with. this bill would not allow an exception for rape and incest for women in the military and military dependence. think about that. military studies and news reports suggest that the rate of sexual assault in the military is unconscionably

high. cbs news reported that 1-3 military women experience sexual assault during their career in the service. 1-3. this is outrageous, and yet under this bill those brave women who took an oath to defend and support the constitution of this country and put their lives on the line every day, if they are sexually assaulted by a peer and become pregnant would not have an opportunity to get an abortion under this rule. that's what we're talking about today, and that is the contrast between these two philosophies of the role of government and the personal, private medical decisions of women, and that is why i ask my colleagues to reject this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i

yield one minute to the gentlewoman ohio, mrs. schmidt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mrs. schmidt: thank you. i want to thank chris smith for this bill. ladies and gentlemen, all this bill does is ending taxpayer funding of public abortion. h.r. 3 is to update long standing hyde amendment and ply it to programs that are fundamentally funded and replace the patchwork system into permanent law. it takes the hyde amendment, the helms amendment, the hyde-weldon amendment as well as others and makes them permanent. that's what the bill does. h.r. 3 enjoys great bipartisan support and had over 227 co-sponsors. so support of this bill is in the public's hands. a cnn poll recently taken last month said 61 of the respondents do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortion and that's what this bill does.

it ends the public funding of abortion. there is a host of other polls that clearly states the same thing. the hyde amendment is in current law, but it simply -- needs to be broadened for all the things we do here in congress. i ask my colleagues to vote on this very important bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am proud to yield to the former chair of the congressional black caucus, the gentlelady from california, barbara lee, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. ms. lee: thank you very much, and i want to thank our ranking member for his leadership and for leading for so many years on so many important issues. madam speaker, here we go again. instead on working on creating jobs and jump-starting the economy, we are debating another cynical and divisive attempt to strip away the rights of women. republicans continue to perpetrate their war on women while millions of people around the country are desperate, mind you, for jobs to help provide

for their families. let me remind you, current law already bans federal funds being used for abortions. that is a fact, even though i personally think we should get rid of that ban. what's next? are we going to block transportation funding because it might be used to build a hospital -- road to hospitals that might be performing abortions? come on. that's a cynical ploy on the majority's side. and this bill specifically attacks low-income women in the district of columbia by permanently prohibiting the district from spending its purely local funds on abortions for low-income women. may i have an additional 30 seconds? 30 seconds, thank you very much. these women in the district have already begun to feel the terrible effects of the writer

passed in the c.r. it's ideologically driven and it's dangerous. so let's reject this bill and this attack and this dangerous war on women, especially low-income women. vote no on h.r. 3. thank you again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, the vice chair of the constitution subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: yes, without objection. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i rise in strong support of h.r. 3, the to taxpayer funding for abortion act. i believe that ending an innocent life is moralally wrong but i believe it's moralally wrong to take the funds of taxpayers and use it to fund a procedure that they find morally offensive. over 30 years the patchwork of policies have denied federal funding for abortion in

america, but today, that exto the yeoman's work of congressman smith of new jersey and congressman dan lipinski, we're bringing a strong and codified message that the american people don't want to allow public funding of abortion at the federal level, and i strongly support it. the man who first brought this idea before the congress was the late henry hyde. i had the privilege of serving with him. his eloquence cannot be matched but it can be peted. henry said, quote, i believe nothing in this world of wonders is more beautiful than the innocence of a child and that little, almost born infant struggling to live as a member of the human family. an abortion is a lethal assault against the very idea of human rights and destroys, along with the defensive baby, the moral foundation of our democracy, closed quote. today, we say yes to life but we also say yes to respecting the moral sensibilities of millions of americans who,

wherever they stand on this decisive social question stand broadly for the principle that no taxpayer dollar should be used to subsidize abortion at home or abroad. h.r. 3 is that legislation. i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: it has been mistakenly repeated at least a dozen times on -- mistakenly repeated at least a dozen time on this floor that without this bill federal funds could be used for abortions. i want to be clear on the record that that is incorrect, and i'm sorry that i have to make the statement. this legislation subjects women

to profound government intrusion. it restricts women's access to health care, and it targets small businesses for additional taxing under our i.r.s. code. now, there are many, many organizations that are opposed to this legislation. the american nurses association , the american civil liberties union, the american congress of obstetricians and gynecologists, catholics for choice, the equal health network, the human rights campaign, the national association of nurse practitioners, and the national

organization of women, the national women's law center, people for the american way, the union for reform judism. the united church of christ, the united methodist church and the ywca, plus numerous others. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, mr. amash. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. amash: thank you, madam speaker. free societies are founded on a corset of rights, rights that are beyond the reach of government and that no other person or group can take away. the founders created our government to secure these

unalienable rights and chief among them is the right to life. presidents recognize this right when they wake carefully whether to put our soldiers in harm's way. our judiciary respects this right when they review each and every capital punishment case. this government authorizes and in some cases pays for the routine taking of the most innocent lives, the lives of the unborn. it is unconscionable that in a country founded explicitly to protect individuals' fundamental rights we allow the regular violation of the right to life. worse yet, the government forces each of us to pay for the killing of innocent life. i urge you to vote for h.r. 3 to strengthen our protection of the right to life. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, the minority whip from maryland, steny hoyer, is our next

speaker, and i'm proud to yield him two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding two minutes. of course, it's not enough time to discuss this issue, but i rise in opposition to this piece of legislation. with millions out of work, the american people sent congress a strong mandate in the last election, take action on jobs. yet, after four months the house majority republicans have yet to put forward a jobs agenda. . what are they doing? they are pursuing a controversial social adividenda one that is far too extreme for most americans. let me say something to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. my friends on the other side of the aisle. some of you i think probably characterize yourself as libertarians or close to it. you believe the government ought to stay out of people's lives. i think that's a worthwhile premise. and i have been here for, as some of you know, a long time, some 30 years.

and i have heard republicans say so often it's their money. let them keep their money. they know better how to spend their money. so what do you do today, my friends? what you say is, well, it's your money. and, yes, we'll give you a tax credit if you spend it the way we want you to spend it. that's what this legislation says. it's your money, but if you don't spend it the way we want you to spend it, we will not give you the tax credit that every other american can get. how far can you take that, my friends? in tax preference after tax preference after tax preference we can say you don't get it if you don't spend it the way we want you to spend it. i want you to think about that. i want you to think about the precedent that you're setting here. that the social activism you

are embarking upon. on the imposition of your views on others through the tax code. my friends, this bill undermines more than any bill that i have seen the rights of women under the constitution of the united states -- may i have one additional minute? mr. conyers: 30 seconds additionally to our friend. the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: stingy, aren't you? i missed by one minute, ladies and gentlemen, i'll tell you that. the public won't know what i'm talking about. the fact of the matter is this bill is bad public policy, it's bad for women's health, it's bad for america, vote no on this bill. let freedom ring. the speaker pro tempore: members are advised to address their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas,

mr. huelskamp. the speaker pro tempore: jeat is recognized one minute. mr. huelskamp: i appreciate the opportunity to speak today. and clearly there is one clear issue before us in h.r. 3. and it's whether or not americans shall be required to fund the taking of innocent human life. and it has been indicated this is controversial and it certainly is. it's without a doubt the american people demand they not be required to subsidize abortions. the second issue here, madam chairman, is the question over and over we have heard from my colleagues. the issue that they would like to see abortion rare. that is what this bill does. this bill will limit the payments and restrict and prohibit the use of federal taxpayer dollars for the funding of abortions. that's what this bill does. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. huelskamp: order, madam chairman. mr. hoyer: would the gentleman

yield? mr. huelskamp: i would not yield. madam chairman, again it's very clear contrary to the claims. americans should not be required to pay for abortions, h.r. 3 accomplishes this objective. i encourage my colleagues to support the bill. i yield my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield a judiciary committee member, ted deutsch of florida, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. deutch: i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3, but i also rise in great disappointment that the people's house is again engaging in a debate about the rights of women rather than a discussion about the challenges that our nation faces. for months democrats have urged this body to refocus its efforts on jobs, yet since the congress convened in january, the republican majority has failed to bring to the floor any measures to help create jobs. their negligence is showing and instead of working in a

bipartisan way to regain america's economic strernt, we again find ourselves on the floor in a divisive debate over women's reproductive freedoms. that's right, rather than wage a war on employment, our republican colleagues are waging a war on women's health. under this legislation's logic, anyone who has government subsidized insurance coverage, which is really everyone who has private health insurance, where we exe-employers from paying taxes, will be forbidden from abortion. where does it end? the answer is it doesn't end. even in the face of overwhelming support in women's rights among american people. even in the face ever pressing challenges, real challenges like the job crisis, nothing stops my republican colleagues from their assaults on a woman's right to choose. i urge a no vote. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield one minute to my colleague from texas, mr. hensarling, who is also the chairman of the republican conference. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hensarling: madam speaker,

i rise to proudly support h.r. 3 for three simple reasons. number one, this still just simply helps codify what has de facto been our policy for 35 years through the hyde amendment. and that is a whocy that no way, shape, or form outlaws abortion. it simply says federal taxpayers will not be compelled to subsidize them. second of all, madam speaker, at a time when our nation is going broke, where we are borrowing 42 cents on the dollar, much of it from the chinese and sending the bill to our children and grandchildren, maybe, maybe those programs that had the least consensive and most divisive among us ought to be the first to lose their taxpayer subsidies. third, and most importantly, and profoundly for me, madam speaker, in my heart and in my head i can come to no other conclusion but that life begins at conception. it is our most fundamental

right enshrined in the constitution, no taxpayer should be compelled against their will to subsidize the loss of human life, truly the least of this. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentlelady from connecticut, rosa delauro, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for one minute. ms. delauro: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this overreaching legislation. it raises taxes, threatens the health of our economy, and endangers women's health. this bill will raise taxes on small business that is offer comprehensive health coverage for women. it will punish perfectly legal private health decisions by raising taxes on plans that offer coverages for abortion. 87% of private health plans will be impacted by this

unprecedented assault. and americans will see their health insurance options restricted or taken away. with this legislation we have yet another example of the majority's real priorities, not to create jobs, not to grow the economy, not to reduce the deficit, but to advance a divisive social agenda by manipulating the tax code. and they are doing more than just raising taxes, rather than trusting women like the majority of americans do, the house majority, they are trying to force women back into traditional roles. they are risking their very health and the report that a companies this bill goes further. it tries to redefine rape and narrow the exception for sexual assault. this bill is unconscionable. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. let's create jobs. we should not be raising taxes and putting women's lives at risk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from texas.

mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. landry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. landry: a large majority of americans oppose taxpayer subsidies for abortion. those who oppose this bill, including the president, claim that it denies access to health care for women. my message to them is simple. the majority of women are opposed to having their hard earned tax dollars spent on abortion. in a recent survey it was found that 70% of women oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. we must permanently end this practice. it is our duty to act and to act now. i urge my colleagues to listen to the majority of americans who strongly oppose public funding for abortion services and pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, rob andrews, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. an -- mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. andrews: thank you. members who are pro-life or pro-choice should oppose this bill because it does violence to the constitution. this bill purports to say that through the tax code we can favor or disfavor the exercise of constitutional rights. that's not right and that's not constitutional. the members of the majority side would certainly not support nor would i a provision that says you can't take a charitable contribution to support a group that lobbies in favor of pro-life causes. but if we wanted to disfavor that point of view in the tax code, this is the way we would do it. there is no difference between what the majority's doing here and that odious provision i just described. it is wrong to raise taxes on people who exercise their constitutional rights because they have chosen to exercise their constitutional rights.

whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, if you are pro-constitution you should vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from alabama, mr. aderholt. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. aderholt: thank you. madam speaker, i rise today in support of the legislation. as of today congress prohibits the expenditure of federal funds on abortions through a patchwork of riders on our annual appropriation bills. these riders include the hyde amendment in labor-hhs and other prohibitions in the state and foreign operations bill, the financial services bill, the commerce, justice, science bill, in addition to the defense bill. simply put, this legislation will eliminate the need for these annual riders to ensure these policies become permanent statute. this bill also codifies the hyde well and conscious clause

that would expand the policy to include all recipients of federal funds. conscious clause protects health care entities that choose not to provide abortions from discrimination by state, local, or federal agencies that receive federal funds. therefore no one who has deep religious or moral opposition to abortions should be forced to provide for them. madam speaker, i support this legislation and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield one minute to my colleague from texas, mr. gohmert, who is also a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. my first daughter was born very prematurely. they rushed her over to shreveport to the i.c.e. level

intensive care. the neonaytologist encouraged me because my wife couldn't come to caress her, talk to her, that it meant so much even though she couldn't see me. she grabbed my finger and held it for hours. she wanted to cling to life. for those of us who think it's wrong to kill children in utero , it is even more wrong to pry money from our hands at the point of an i.r.s. gun so that others can use our tax dollars to pay to kill those children. please let's stop it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, we are prepared to close.

the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from michigan, are you prepared to close? do you have any more speakers? mr. conyers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i want to urge all

of the members of the house to please consider this issue from an unemotional point of view as possible, to please determine in your hearts and in your mind about the fact that this bill goes over the top. and i reserve the balance of my time. and i would now like to recognize the distinguished minority leader, nancy pelosi, for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the distinguished leader is recognized for one minute. pelosi -- ms. pelosi: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank him for his leadership on the health of america's women.

this is approximately the 120th day of the republican majority in the congress of the united states. and not -- in all those 120 days we have yet to see a jobs bill brought to the floor. we haven't even seen a jobs proposal or a jobs agenda. instead, once again, we see a diversion, a diversion. we see legislation which is extreme and divisive and harmful to women's help. i rise today to urge my republican colleagues in the house, let us come together to work in a bipartisan way to address the number one priority of the american people, the creation of jobs. and i rise today as the republicans bring to the floor this legislation instead of bringing to the floor a bill to end the subsidies for big oip -- oil. they gave the impression during the break he -- they would do

that. i asked for an end to the subsidies to big oil. instead of doing that, we are, again, undermining women's health. let us begin debate or this part of the debate, anyway, with a clear understanding of the facts. federal funding for abortion is already permitted under the law, the hyde amendment, except in the cases of rape, incest and life of the money. federal funding for abortion is already prohibited. this bill is even a radical departure from the hyde amendment. it represents an unprecedented and, again, radical assault on women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services. for the first time, this bill places restrictions on how women with private insurance can spend their private dollars in purchasing health insurance.

this bill will deny tax credits for women who buy the type of health insurance that they currently have, health insurance that covers a full range of reprow ductive care. as a result -- now, this is about businesses. if you're a woman and you have a job and your employer gives you health insurance, that employer will no longer be able to take a tax deduction for your health insurance. quite different from what happens with their male employees. in that event when that happens, health insurance companies will then roll back that coverage because there won't be enough people participating in the pool to justify that insurance. so this is -- millions of women will no longer have access to insurance policies from their employer that cover all reproductive services. the practical result of this

legislation for many will be a tax increase. a tax increase on small businesses and a tax increase on women based on how they choose their private dollars simply for keeping the coverage they have right now. even more of a problem, this legislation allows hospitals to deny life-saving care to women in moments of dire emergencies. the bill would permit medical professionals to turn their backs on women dying from treatable conditions. this is appalling. as the american college of obstetricians and gynecologists wrote in opposition to this effort, we oppose legislative proposals to limit women's access to any needed medical care. these proposals can jeopardize the health and safety of our patients and put government

between a physician and a patient. end of quote. madam speaker, let us not work to limit the care. let us expand it. let us not raise taxes on small businesses on women. let us strengthen our middle class. let us never attack the health of women. let us instead create jobs. that's what the american people expect us to do, and that is why i urge my colleagues to oppose this divisive and radical legislation. i urge -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from ohio, mr. boehner, the speaker of the united states house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker is recognized for one minute. the speaker: let me thank my colleague for yielding and express my support for h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for

abortion act. this commonsense bipartisan legislation codifies the hyde amendment and similar policies by permanently applying a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion across all federal programs. last year we listened to the american people through our america speaking out project and they spoke out on this issue loudly and clearly. we included it in our pledge to america, and today we're taking another step toward meeting that commitment in keeping our word. a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion is the will of the american people and ought to be the law of the land. but the law, particularly as it is currently enforced, does not reflect the will of the american people. this has created additional uncertainty, given that americans are concerned, not just about how much we're spending, but how we're spending it. enacting this legislation would provide the american people with the assurance that their

hard-earned tax dollars will not be used to fund abortions. and i want to commend the leadership of the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, and the gentleman from illinois, mr. lipinski, and i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman -- the gentleman from texas. is recognized. you have 3 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: madam speaker, we're prepared to close and wait for the gentleman from michigan to yield back the balance of his time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. mr. conyers: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. smith, who is the chief sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is yielded 3 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: i thank the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. smith, for his leadership. i want to thank mr. lipinski.

i want to thank dave camp and our speakers, john boehner, for his eloquent statement and his compassion for both mothers and children who are hurt by abortion and for eric cantor, our majority leader, and for 228 co-sponsors of this legislation. madam speaker, there is no doubt whatsoever that ending all public funding for abortions saves lives. even the pro-abortion guttmacher institute said in 2009, anyone who would have -- 25% of women who would have medicaid funded abortion, without hyde, instead give birth when this funding is unavailable. if this is not available, children have a greater chance atsur vifle. i said earlier during the debate on the rule i remember the late congressman henry hyde being moved literally to tears. i was in the room when it happened when he learned that the hyde amendment had likely

saved the lives of more than one million babies who today are getting on with their lives, going to school, forging a career, perhaps serving in this chamber, at least some of them, or even beginning their own families. h.r. 3, the to taxpayer funding for abortion act, comprehensively ensures that money appropriated by the federal government, including obamacare, do not subsidize the killing of babies except in the rare cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. h.r. 3 ends the current i.r.s. policy of allowing taxpayer treatment for abortion under itemized deductions. h.m.s.'s, h.s.a.'s and, madam speaker, we know that americans are taking a good, long, hard

second look at abortion. the polls show it. on taxpayer funding, the minimal majority, 60%, 61%, some polls put it as high as 68%, do not want their funding being used to pay for abortion. earlier in the debate, some of my colleagues have suggested that this is a tax increase, yet, americans for tax reform who doggedly protect the public purse have said americans for tax reform has no problems or issues with h.r. 3. the bill has no net change in taxes whatsoever. h.r. 3 also makes the hyde-weldon conscience protection permanent and significantly and more effectively by authorizing the courts to prevent or redress threatened violations of conscience. we know without any doubt there is huge pressures, particularly in some states like california, to coerce, plan and ensure and

health care systems, especially those who are faith-based, to change their policies and permit abortion on demand. let me just conclude, madam speaker, someday i truly believe future generations of americans will look back on us, especially policymakers, and wonder how and why such a rich and enlightened society, so blessed and endowed with the capacity to protect vulnerable human life could have insisted and instead aggressively promoted death to children and the exploitation of their moms. they will know with deep sadness, some of our politicians, while they talked about human rights, never lifted a finger to protect the most persecuted minority in the world, the child in the womb. vote for h.r. 3, the no taxpayer -- no taxpayer money for abortion act. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. brady: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, on behalf of dave camp, the chairman of the ways and means committee, and i stand in support of h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act, a bill that restricts the use of taxpayers' funds for abortion. i will continue my statement, but at this time would like to yield one minute to the majority leader of the u.s. house, the gentleman, mr. eric

cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized for one minute. mr. cantor: thank you, madam speaker. and i thank the gentleman. i'd also like to congratulate and thank the gentleman from new jersey, who had just spoken, for his leadership on this issue. madam speaker, above all else, we are a culture that values life. likewise, our efforts as a nation are dedicated to improving, preserving and celebrating life. that's why it's no surprise that polling routinely shows that over 60% of americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion. h.r. 3, the no taxpayer funding for abortion act, enforces a governmentwide prohibition on subsidies for abortion and abortion coverage. at a time of fiscal crisis, this bill ensures that scarce resources are not diverted towards increasing the number of abortions in america. this bill also codifies existing conscience protections and closes loopholes that offer

tax preferred status to abortion. in short, it comports with the values of our people. thomas jefferson warned that to compel a man to subsidize with his taxes, the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. forcing americans to subsidize elected abortion with their tax dollars falls squarely in this camp. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3 and ensure that no taxpayer dollars go toward the funding of abortion, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: we here need to talk straight to the american people. this bill does not codify the hyde amendment. it goes well beyond it. we don't need to codify the

hyde amendment. it's the law of the land. the purpose of this bill is to go beyond it, and that's what you should acknowledge. in doing so you cross a very, very important line. this bill is going nowhere in the senate. where it can go is everywhere in interfering with a person's access to health care or with the use of their own money for their own purposes as they choose. the lombic here, if it becomes precedent, could be used, for example, to prevent a health policy falling into the tax code if the procedure relates to a development that occurred because of stem cell research.

we should not be doing that. it takes away the ability to use an itemized deduction. we should not do that. where does this stop? where does it stop? it crosses a line for the first time. it does not codify, it threatens crossing a line we should not, in terms of the ability of people to provide health care and use their own resources. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. >> i yield myself a minute and a half. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> this is about -- mr. brady: we're codifying the long-standing bipartisan hyde amendment which prevents taxpayer funds from being used

for abortion related costs. i want to be clear about what the legislation does and does not do. this legislation does not, as critics claim, affect the ability of the individual to play for -- pay for abortion or abortion coverage through private funding or provide for an entity to provide abortion, it does not apply in the cases of rape, incest or life-threatening condition of the mother, nor does it refer to any injuries resulting from abortion. this does not increase taxes. at this time, madam speaker, i'd like to submit a letter from the americans for tax reform for the record to that effect. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. brady: this legislation makes specific and narrow changes to the tax code so funds in f.s.a. or health code are used to pay for abortion, as the will not -- those will not get tax treatment.

and moneys made available under the health law cannot be used to cover abortion. h.r. 3 is a pro-life, pro-family and it's a step toward setting into law a long-standing precedent that republicans have supported for decades. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: could i ask the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. mr. he vip: i used my full -- mr. levin: i used my full two minutes? i did. i yield another minute to mr. -- a minute and a half to mr. blumenauer of oregon. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: the gentleman said it right. there are no federal funds for abortion under the hyde

amendment except in the case of rape and incest. what this is about is how families spen their money and small business deals with insurance. it's part of a continuing republican assault against people with whom they disagree. it continues to -- continues the sad spectacle of using the internal revenue service, not just the use but abuse of the i.r. stomplet attack people with whom they disagree. remember the spectacle of the ways and means hearing where they drug aarp before them and tried to have an investigation because they disagreed with them on health insurance. yes this would put government between doctors and american families. but it's not just about abortion urn the hyde amendment. remember, there are some people who are against the rape and incest exemption. there are some people who had a shocking proposal to redefine the very definition of rape.

there is a continuing effort to erode basic, fundamental reproductive freedom and this shows a tactic of using the i.r.s. that i think is very dangerous. it does in fact raise the complexity and taxes on individuals who may in fact need these procedures and they -- and may be lifesaving, they may not agree but their doctor disagrees. this is a specter of using the tax code and investigating power in ways that no one should support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from texas. mr. brady: i yield two minutes to a nurse an member of the ways and means, the distinguished gentlelady from tennessee, mrs. black. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: we have heard many misrepresentations of the true nature of this bill. i want to boil it down to the simple facts of what this bill does. no hyperbole, no scare tactics.

this bill codifies the hyde amendment that no taxpayer dollars will go to abortion. this is a long standing policy of the federal government since 1976. we already know how medical expenses of all sorts are treated urn the tax code. tax payers who use itemized deductions for medical expenses, who have h.s.a.'s or f.s.a.'s or m.s.a.'s, do not, and i want to highlight that, do not identify each medical expense on an individual tax return. that is not the case today, nor will it be the case if this bill is signed into law. to be clear what this bill does not do, a woman would not have to list on a tax form that a specific medical expense was for an abortion. that's simply not how the process works. it's not how it works today. nor will it be how it works if

this is signed into law. it's important to make clear that no one would ever be audited because of an abortion. they would have to already be under an audit for some other reason before, and i want to emphasize that, before the i.r.s. would even consider asking for any -- information about any medical procedure. many types of medical care are very private and as a nurse for over 40 years, i fully understand how personal medical issues can be. taxpayers who don't want to tell the i.r.s. about medical procedures, they wish to be kept private, can do so by not claiming those tax credits for such care. now, even if this issue did arise in an audit, other federal agencies that already use taxpayer dollars such as medicaid and the federal employee health benefit program -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

mr. brady: i yield the gentlelady 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. black: have no problem distinguishing between abortion for rape or incest or those that are elective. they ask the provider, basically a doctor's note. that doesn't mean this is not a difficult situation for that small group of women and i understand it is incredibly difficult and my heart gos out to them but if we claim a tax benefit for a medical procedure like an abortion and you get audited you can either choose to forgo the tax benefit or ask the provider to verify that tax benefit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. levin: it's my pleasure to yield the balance of our time

to mr. crowley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. crowley: i thank the speaker fer yielding me the time and the gentleman from michigan for doing so as well. with all due respect to my colleague, mrs. black, when someone comes to the floor and says i'm going to speak free of hyperbole, it'll be so high up to your neck, you don't have to worry about getting it off your shoe. if what we were doing was codifying existing law, there would be very little angst on this side of the aisle. but that's not what we're doing. this goes so much further, it only speaks to the ideological purge that you're on right now. madam speaker, on the 100th day of the republican rule of the house, i see speeches on the floor, after their failed campaign promise to focus on jobs and economic growth.

it said actions speak louder than words an that's true. for all the republicans' talk about putting americans back to work, their actions demonstrate this is the least of their priorities. instead, they have cut jobs, raised taxes and reduced americans' access to health care. the bill being debated today also has no jobs component whatsoever. not a single job will be created because of this bill today. in fact, it will raise taxes and hamper the ability of small business men and women to hire people. in their ideological zeal to restrict a woman's right to choose, the republicans have prioritized a measure south carolina small business chamber of commerce calls, and i quote, a slap in the face to small business owners. we just a few weeks ago removed the 1099 onerous provisions and now we're going to further burden small business men and women with this provision. it will burden them. it will not create a single

job. it will further burden the ability of small business men and women to create jobs in america. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. >> madam speaker -- mr. brady: madam speaker, how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the time for the committee on ways and means has expired.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. madam speaker, the bill before us today should be a no brainer. americans overwhelmingly reject the use of taxpayer funds for abortion. in several polls over the last few years, anywhere from 60% to 70% of the public oppose using taxpayer funds for abortion. h.r. 3 puts into statute the will of the american people.

mr. pitts: since 1976, the hyde amendment has been included in appropriations bills to ensure that federal funds are not used to provide abortions. this policy provision has passed year in and year out with bipartisan support. h.r. 3 would just take that provision and put it into law. this may make sense to most americans, but for some reason, this idea receives great pushback in washington. health care reform also placed abortion funding at the center of its debate. in their haste to pass obamacare last congress, the democrat leadership in washington neglected to include any adequate prohibition on abortion funding. the president did issue an executive order to support the intentions of hyde, unfortunately, the order merely

reiterated the accounting gimmick in the health care bill. the president's own chief of staff at that time would later comment on how he thought up the idea for this executive order so that they could, quote, allow the stupak amendment not to exist by law but by executive order, end quote. when the president signed that bill into law, he allowed a massive expansion in federal funding for abortion. in a time of great federal debt, the last thing the american people want is to have their taxpayer dollars used on the morally objectionable practice of abortion. according to a 2007 report, if the hyde amendment was removed from law, the number of abortions would likely increase by 25%. the study reveals what is common sense. an increase in funding for abortions will directly lead to

an increase in the number of abortions. many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have expressed their desire to reduce abortions. if that is truly their desire and not just a talking point, then they should have no problem at all voting in favor of this bill. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentlelady from colorado. >> i rise in strong opposition to this extreme legislation and yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from illinois, ms. schakowsky. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. sh cause could he, madam speaker, i rise in opposition to h.r. 3, the so-called no taxpayer funding for abortion act. but don't be confused. h.r. 3 goes far beyond current law which is already highly restrictive and frankly which i

oppose. the hyde amendment already prohibits women enrolled in medicaid, medicare, federal employees, women serving in the military, women in prisons, women in peace corps and those under the indian health services act from getting the care they need. in other words, there is no federal funding for abortion. actually, what it does do, among other things, is attack small businesses. let's hear the words of frank map jr., president and c.e.o. of the south carolina small business chamber of commerce with 5,000 members. here's what he said, "h.r. 3 is an attempt to roll back the small business health insurance tax credit created by the affordable care act." when the house voted to eliminate and defeat the entire affordable care act, we, he means small businesses, could rationize this was collateral

damage. small businesses can no longer think of themselves as collateral damage. mr. knapp says, let me make this very clear. a vote for h.r. 3 is a direct attack on small business. every representative who loudly proclaims their love for small businesses because we are the backbone, you know -- they are the backbone of the economy -- now can put their vote where their mouth is. their support for small business will be judged by a no vote on h.r. 3. i urge all my colleagues not to let this use of the -- phony use of the tax code to take away the rights of small business to get tax credits or individuals to pay for abortions with their own money. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: for the information of members, the hyde amendment

only applies in the labor-h bill. it's offered every year as a writer. similar language is offered to indian health, federal employee health benefits acts. we've done these amendments or writers to these bills for years. so when you speak about the hyde amendment, we should speak about it accurately. i yield at this time to the gentlelady from missouri, ms. hertzler, such time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. hartzler: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3. this is not a controversial bill. this is a commonsense bill to rein in our runaway government spending and to spend money on things the american people don't want. certainly we should not be spending our hard-earned tax dollars on abortion.

people work hard all year to send in their taxes on april 15, and they shouldn't have their money going to something that is moralally objectionable to them. it takes away human life. there are many, many areas of this budget that we need to rein in, but this is noncontroversial. this is something that over 60% of the american people say, i don't want my tax dollars going to pay for abortion, the taking of a human innocent life. and so it's time to make this permanent so we don't have to as a congress come in every year and discuss these issues on all the different legislation that is out there. now is the time to make this permanent. get off the table so we can get on to other areas of reining in the runaway spending, making government more efficient, more effective, using our tax dollars more wisely, and certainly it is not an affront to women's health. women have the opportunity to get the health care that they

need now, but we don't need to be using it to take innocent human life. i certainly applaud this bill and that's why it has so many co-sponsors. we need to make sure that our tax dollars are not used to pay for abortion. madam speaker, i yield back my time. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: i am now pleased to yield to a senior member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. engel of new york, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: mr. engel is recognized for one minute. mr. engel: thank you. i thank the members on the other side of the aisle if you repeat it over and over again the people will believe it. the hyde amendment already prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion. this is not about federal funds. the other thing i don't understand is my republican friends always claim that they want smaller government. they don't want the government to intrude on people's lives. so here we are about to pass a measure that expands government, intrudes on people's lives and penalize

small businesses and impeds them from creating jobs. i don't believe the government should be in the business of preventing people from accessing legal medical treatment. it surprises me and worries me that this congress keeps proposing legislation that diminishes the right to access health care. abortion is legal in this country. i understand how people feel on both sides of the aisle. it's a very personal decision. yet, republicans seem intent on interfering with a woman's right to make her own decisions with her family and physicians using her private money. abortion is a difficult choice, to be sure, and this extreme legislation makes the decision even harder. we need to provide women and their families with the support they need to make health decision, not criminalize them. vote no on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: madam speaker, how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: 30 seconds. mr. pitts: i yield 30 second to the gentlelady from north

carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 30 seconds. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue and for yielding time. madam speaker, not using the hard-earned money of taxpayers to destroy innocent unborn children is not extreme. it is not radical. it is the right thing to do. the majority of americans agree with us, madam speaker, that it is the wrong thing to use their money for this issue. and i want to support my colleagues in this legislation and say we need to pass this bill and we need to send a message to the american people that we're wise stewards of their money. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from colorado. ms. degette: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of our time.

the speaker pro tempore: two minutes. ms. degette: madam speaker, sitting and listening to this debate it would be extremely easy to become confused. the proponents of this bill keep repeating the same mantra. they want to stop federal funding of abortion. they forget to mention that there is no federal funding of abortion. what they want to do is expand restrictions on funding for the first time into tax policy. right now under current law we have the hyde amendment which every year prevents federal funds from being used for abortion except for in the cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. i don't like the hyde amendment. lots of people don't like the hyde amendment but it's the law. this bill, however, goes far beyond current law. now, my colleagues across the aisle want to expand these restrictions and make sure that individuals and businesses can't get complete women's health care in their health insurance with their own money

without paying for a tax increase. businesses who right now get tax relief for having full health insurance now would not be able to get it. let me say this again. at a time when everybody in this house, certainly everybody on the other side of the aisle, is saying we can't raise taxes, the leadership of this house is supporting raising taxes to advance a social policy. i don't think, madam speaker, that this was in the republican pledge to america. madam speaker, i don't know how many times the republican leadership is going to make this congress vote to strip american women their access to health care with their own money, but i for one would like to encourage them to spend their time getting our country back to work rather on an extreme agenda that the american people didn't ask for, that they didn't want, that's going nowhere in the u.s. senate and if it did would be

vetoed by the president of the united states. i yield back the balance of my time and urge the members to vote no on this ill-conceived piece of legislation. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate on the bill has expired. pursuant to house resolution 237, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 3 is postponed. pursuant to house resolution 236 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1214. will the gentlewoman from north carolina, mrs. myrick, kindly take the chair?

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1214 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to repeal mandatory funding for school-based health center construction. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on monday, may 3, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order -- amendment number 1 by ms. jackson lee of texas, amendment number 2 by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record by the

gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

the committee will come to order. the chair would ask all presence to rise for the purpose of a moment of silence. the chair asks that the committee now observe a moment of silence in remembrance of our brave men and women in uniform who've given their lives in the service of our nation in iraq and afghanistan and their families.

clb the speaker pro tempore: madam chairman.

the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration -- the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1214 and pursuant to house resolution 236 reports the bill back to the house. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to repeal mandatory funding for school-base health center construction. the speaker pro tempore: would

members please vacate the well and take your conversations off the floor. would members please take your conversations out of the well and off the floor. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. >> madam speaker, i ask to reserve a point of order and i would point out i cannot hear a word you're saying from the

chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is -- the gentleman's point of order is reserved. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. mccarthy of new york moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 1214, to the committee on energy an commerce with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendments. mrs. mccarthy: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. the house is not in order. would the members please take their conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will continue. the clerk: in section one, add at the end the following, c, publication of names and locations of applicants who will not receive grants not later than 30 days after the enactment of this act, the secretary of health and human services shall publish on the department website the the names an locations of each school-based health center or sponsoring facility that has an

application of a grant under section 4101-a of the patient protection and affordable care act pending at the time of repeal of section 4101-a by this act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. mrs. mccarthy: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise today to offer a motion to recommit to this misguided bill. it's important to note that this motion is simply a final amendment to the bill -- the speaker: the gentlewoman will suspend. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. mccarthy: thank you. it's important to note that this motion is simply a final amendment to the bill an will not kill the bill as the majority may claim.

school-based health centers are on the front lines of preventive care and preventive care saves lives and saves money and school-based centers are on the front lines of preventive care. as a nurse for over 30 years, i know that prevention can keep people out of emergency rooms that taxpayers help fund and it keeps them from needing expensive procedures and medicines that drive up insurance costs. patients seen at school-based centers, for example, cost medicaid and average of $30 less than comparable non-school-based centers. school-based centers play a role in treating concussion an helping halt the spread of infectious diseases like the flu. they have a positive effect on the education system. they have been shown to reduce absenteeisms. a recent study found that students who use high school centers had a 50% reduction in

absenteeism and 25% reduction in lateness and many increased their grade point averages over time compared to students who did not use school-based health centers. finally, the fact is that sometimes the centers are students' only source of health care. we are faced today with legislation that attacks the preventive work done by our school-paced health centers. h.r. 1214 is an upsetting piece of legislation. but that's not surprising, this comes if the same conference that voted to end medicare as we know it. both of these measures are penny wise and pound foolish. it approaches the cut to preventive care to merps who need it most and both measures go against the most vulnerable americans, the elderly and children. the republican majority passed a reckless budget before the recess and are forced to pass this reckless piece of

legislation today. i offer this motion to recommit to highlight the terrible impacts of the republican approach in this legislation. this motion to recommit is simply again a final amendment and will not kill the bill. my motion to recommit requires the names and locations of each school-based health center that has applied for a grant urn the program that the republican party would end today to be posted on a publicly available website this way we will be able to all see very clearly the damage that this republican proposal will cause. like many of my colleague the school-based health center in my district would be denied funding urn this bill. one of my hospitals in my district, winthrop university hospital, has been partnering with hamp stead high school to run a school-based health center this center has 1,500 students and has has 6,000 students visit each year. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is correct. the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. mrs. mccarthy: thank you, madam speaker. winthrop -- the winthrop university partnership operates in my district and half of all the students who use this health center are uninsured. for the most part, the school-paced health center at hamp stead high school is the only access to health care they have. the grant this center applied for will help them serve this population who has nowhere else

to turn. i'll stand with those students and their families and protect the center. i hope other members will choose to stand with their constituents as well. should this bill become law, those members who voted for this bill will have to answer to their communities involve a vital throing health care cut off. i would also like to note some misinformation being spread by the supporters of h.r. 14. they claim -- of h.r. 14. they claim the -- of h.r. 1214. they claim the grants are need -- aren't needed because they are available through other sources but that's not true my colleagues also claim that construction funds would be provided so cent -- provided to centers that aren't sustainable. but that's also not true. guidelines have been developed to ep sure that no construction funds will be provided to any school-based health center that cannot document they are sustainable now and into the future. as i said, ladies and

gentlemen, school-based health centers work. they keep our young people healthy and successful in school. they do it in a way that saves our taxpayers money. it is just common sense to support school based centers. again, this amendment will not kill the bill. this motion to recommit is simply a final amendment to the bill that will provide transparency to the process. i urge all members to support this motion to recommit. thank you very much and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. burgess: i withdraw the point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn an the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker for the recognition. it's an interesting little motion to recommit, described

as being benign and not changing the overall nature of the underlying legislation. so benign is the motion -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspen. mr. burgess: it descends into the realm of being superfluous and unnecessary. it's a motion to recommit to publish the names and low cages of applicants who will not receive grants. from this, we won't know if those grants not approved were simply poorly drafted. we have a health care law that was poorly drafted so we know it is within the realm of someone working in the federal government to poorly draft an application for a school-based clinic. washington's addiction to spending has become crystal clear to the american people and the passage of this massive health care law by president obama last year is exhibit a. of the thousands of problems in

the patient protection and affordable care act, the underlying bill, h.r. 1214, addresses but one of them. and a very small one at that. the patient protection and affordable care act provides $200 million in mandatory funding for the construction of school-based health centers. the bill eliminates this funding as our nation faces a mounting deficit and debt crisis. funding for school-based health construction may be a good idea, maybe it's not a good idea. maybe we should have that debate which we didn't in the run up to the passage of this bill. but the 111th congress, the last congress, did not think about it before they threw, literally, $100 million -- $200 million at the program. i would just point out, of all the so-called cut bills that are to remove the advanced appropriations in the patient protection and affordable care act, out of all those bills that remove advance appropriation, this is is -- it is this small little bill that

has not drawn a veto threat from the white house. madam speaker, that leads me to believe that the president himself was embarrassed about the language included in the bill on this point and the white house now recognizing that, is not about to go out on a limb and issue a veto threat against this bill. the motion to recommit brought forward by the other side shows that they do not realize that we have a spending problem in washington, d.c. congress should examine if there's a need for a program and through regular order, rather than rushing to authorize it or appropriate dollars in a feel-good piece of legislation. we hear about american families, how about standing with those american families that actually pay taxes to the federal government for a change? i urge my colleagues to vote no on the motion to recommit, yes on the underlying bill. let's get our fiscal house back in order. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair would ask all members

to avoid trafficking the well while another member is under recognition. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. mccarthy: madam speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote has been requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. . pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five

clerk will report by title. the clerk: union calendar number 28, h.r. 3, a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortions and to provide for conscience protections and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit taxpayer funded abortio and to provide for conscience protections and for other purposes. the speaker pro temporethe house will be in order. >> madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? in i am opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. speier of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3 to the committee on the judiciary with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwithwith the following amendments, page 8, after the matter following five, insert the following,

private medical records of victims of rape or incest. nothing by this titling shall be construed to permit the government to gain access to the private medical records of victims of rape an insist. insert after the item 102 the following, section o103, private medical records of victims of rape an incest. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> madam chair, i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves a point of order. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of hemotion. the house will be in order. the gentlewoman deserves your attention. please take your conversations off the floor.

the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. speier: thank you, madam speaker. at the outset let me say the following. as a member of the democratic caucus, there have been times in the past when i have supported republican motions to recommit. i've done it in a number of times, i confess. and i'm speaking to my republican colleagues this afternoon seeking to ask you to do the same because this particular motion is very simple, very clear, it will not prevent the passage of the underlying bill, if it to is adopted it will be incorporated in the bill and the bill will be immediately voted upon. so what does it do? it is about what every one of us care about and that is privacy. americans believe in privacy

and justice bran dice once said in a -- brandeis said in a court opinion, every american has the right to be left alone. this is something we can all agree upon. my motion would simply prohibit federal agents from accessing a woman's health or other medical records because she was a victim of rape or incest. now that's pretty simple. if you're a victim of rape or incest, no federal agency or agent will be able to access your medical records in order to prove that you in fact were raped or a victim of incest. both the hyde amendment and this legislation specifically creates exceptions for victims of these crimes. the underlying bill would create an exception to the exception.

it actually revictimizes the victims of rape rape and insist by remembering them to -- incest by require eming -- requiring them to relive their horror. rape kits to be examined, confidentiality medical records could be breeched. how could we ask a woman who has suffered horrific crimes to now face scrutiny by an i.r.s. audit? think about it. is that what we want? do we want women who have been victims of rape and incest to have a i.r.s. agent knocking on their door to determine whether or not they really had a rape or were victims of an incest? we should be treating these victims like victims, not criminals. medical privacy is a -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend.

the gentlelady deserves to be heard and i ask people to take their conversations off the floor. the gentlewoman from colorado is recognized. ms. speier: thank you, madam speaker. medical privacy is a long standing and protected right for every american. why should the right be forfeited because you are a victim of rape or incest? let me say it one more time. passage of this motion will not prevent passage of the bill. if it's adopted it will be incorporated in the bill and the bill will be taken up immediately. madam speaker, last month i received a call from a woman who was raped while serving in the

united states navy. sometimes we get wrapped up in the words and forget about the real lives we're talking about. this navy -- this member of the navy was raped, beaten savagely and left for dead at his quarters -- at her quarters. she was later informed that she was pregnant and opted to have an abortion. does anyone here believe that this woman, who volunteered to serve our country, should be subject to an audit by the i.r.s.? now particular navy service person has since been diagnosed with post traumatic stress and has attempted suicide more than once. this is a real-life story of an american in uniform fighting for

our freedom. we should not use the tax code to force women like this to relieve -- to relive their ordeal to an i.r.s. agent. privacy is a fundamental right as this motion would ensure that the most vulnerable in our society has access to it. the underlying bill would unleash i.r.s. audits on rape victims potentially and that, my friends, is a disgrace. let me be clear one more time. passage of this motion will not prevent passage of the underlying bill. so though we may disagree on the bill and the issue of abortion rights in general, today we have the opportunity to speak with one voice, to protect privacy of victims of rape and incest. it's really up to us. i urge everyone to vote yes on this motion to recommit. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> first, madam speaker, to are withdraw my point of order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his reservation. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to speak on of motion to recommit. in opposition. mr. franks: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this motion to recommit. the amendment supposes that the bill does something that it doesn't do. nothing in this bill allows the i.r.s. any greater access to health information than they've ever had. hipaa is still in place, this is simply an amendment looking for a problem that isn't there. madam chair, a dozen amendments were offered to this bill in the committee. the committee carefully considered and dismissed most of those amendments. likewise opponents had a second opportunity to challenge the bill in the ways and means committee and the product is the

bill before us. i've heard so much incorrect information about the bill, madam speaker. i would like to say to you that when the gentlelady speaks to the most vulnerable among us, i would simply say that before the sun sets today in america, 4,000 unborn children will die of abortion on demand. and in every case a nameless little baby will dry a tragic and lonely death -- die a tragic and lonely death. a mother will never be quite the same and all the gifts that child might have brought to humanity will be lost forever. and i would like to tell you that this bill does something to prevent that same thing from happening tomorrow but it doesn't. madam speaker, this bill simply says that taxpayers in the future will no longer have to pay for or worry about their taxpayer dollars being used for that purpose. and whatever red herrings we may have heard from the opponents today this bill does nothing

more than require that abortion funding remain in the private sphere and outside the reach of government's course of power. the bill does a very simple piece of legislation, without the complexity that it's been reputed to have. i would encourage all americans to take a look at the underlying legislation so that you can see for yourself that this bill is -- has no need of this motion to recommit. unlike the obamacare bill with, this simple piece of legislation is only a few pages long and easily understandable. the new majority writes its bills this way on purpose, so that members in and the american people can be confident that this body is in fact carrying out the will of the people. that's exactly what this bill does, madam speaker, and i urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and i would certainly yield. >> i just want to instruct the house. on this motion to recommit, i'm sorry, it only affects title 1 of the bill. all of the tax provisions are in title 2 of the bill. so this does not affect any of the tax provisions in the

legislation and i yield back. mr. franks: madam speaker, what he said and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. speier: madam speaker, i request a record vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california requests a recorded vote. a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a lord -- recorded vote is ordered. members will recs will record t by electronic device. excuse me. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question opassage.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedgs for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of